CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE039F85F { width:124.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 6874/14 Jolanta WITTIB against Lithuania   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   October 2022 as a Chamber composed of:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , President,   Carlo Ranzoni ,   Egidijus Kūris ,   Pauliine Koskelo ,   Jovan Ilievski ,   Saadet Yüksel ,   Diana Sârcu , judges, and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 January 2014, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Jolanta Wittib is a former Lithuanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Sautens, Austria. She is represented before the Court by Ms   E.   Matulionytė , a lawyer practising in Vilnius. 2.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   K.   Bubnytė ‑ Širmenė. The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 8 August 2008 in the Austrian town of Oetz the applicant married an Austrian citizen, F.A.   Wittib. She chose to take her husband’s surname, and the Austrian authorities in Tyrol delivered to her a marriage certificate in which her forename and surname were given as “Jolanta Wittib”. 5.     On 14   October 2008 the applicant asked the Civil Registry Division of the Vilnius City Municipality Administration (“the VCMA”) ( Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracijos Civilinės metrikacijos skyrius ) to register her marriage ( įtraukti santuoką į apskaitą ) and to issue her with a Lithuanian marriage certificate. 6 .     On 19   November 2008 the VCMA Civil Registry Division registered the applicant’s marriage and issued her with a Lithuanian marriage certificate in which her husband’s surname was transcribed as “Wittib”; however, her married surname was rendered as “Vittib”. That information was also entered in the national population register ( Lietuvos gyventojų registras ) (“the Population Register”). 7.     The applicant disagreed with what she considered to be a unilateral decision to change the spelling of her surname in her Lithuanian marriage certificate. She refused to accept the Lithuanian marriage certificate. 8.     Subsequently, upon the expiry of her old Lithuanian passport, in which her name had been written as “Jolanta Balčiūnienė” (her surname before her marriage), on 2   April 2010, and on the basis of her Lithuanian marriage certificate, the police authorities in Vilnius ( Vilniaus VPK MV (19) ) issued the applicant with a new Lithuanian passport, in which her name was given as “Jolanta Vittib”. 9 .     In September 2010 the applicant instituted court proceedings, asking the Vilnius City First District Court to order the Vilnius municipal authorities to issue her with a new Lithuanian marriage certificate in which her surname would be transcribed as “Wittib”. The applicant specified that the unilateral change to the spelling of her surname by the Lithuanian authorities had exposed her to a number of practical difficulties, such as when concluding contracts, taking part in local elections, trying to use social and medical insurance, and using a car – in all such situations she encountered difficulties when having to prove her identity. She also noted that the different spelling of her and her husband’s surnames, which also meant that the respective versions of that name were pronounced differently, caused problems for third persons trying to confirm the identity of her and her husband as a married couple. The applicant pointed out that she had consciously chosen to have the same surname as her husband after her marriage – not only as a symbol of their family relationship, but also in order to alleviate practical problems in their life as a married couple, given the already existing fact that they were of different nationalities. 10 .     By a decision of 30   June 2011, the Vilnius City First District Court refused the applicant’s request that the transcription of her surname be changed in the acts of her civil status. The court noted that the relevant existing legal regulation – the Supreme Council’s resolution of 31   January 1991 (see paragraph   17 below) – did not permit the applicant’s surname to be transcribed as “Wittib”. 11 .     The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia , that the Lithuanian authorities’ refusal to issue her with documents rendering her surname as “Wittib” had amounted to a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her private and family life. 12.     On 8   November 2012 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the first ‑ instance court’s decision. 13 .     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing, among other things, that the domestic courts had departed from the case-law of the Court (she referred, inter alia , to Daróczy v. Hungary , no.   44378/05, 1   July 2008, and Kemal Taşkın and Others v. Turkey , nos.   30206/04 and 7 others, 2   February 2010) and that there had been a breach of Article   8 of the Convention. She submitted that the Lithuanian authorities’ stated aim of protecting the Lithuanian language had clearly not been genuine. She pleaded that neither the first-instance nor the second-instance courts had properly assessed whether the refusal to permit her name to be written with the letter “W” had been proportionate, which, the applicant submitted, it had not. 14 .     By a final ruling of 17   July 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions. It referred to the Supreme Council’s resolution of 31   January 1991, which provided that a person’s forename and surname in his or her passport should be written in accordance with the rules of the State language. 15 .     By a letter of 1   February 2022 the Government provided the Court with an extract from the Population Register indicating that the applicant’s identity card, issued to her on 7   April 2010 in the name of Ms Jolanta Vittib, was no longer valid as of 13   March 2020, because the owner of that card had lost her citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 16 .     The Constitution reads: Article 14 “Lithuanian shall be the State language.” Article 22 “... The law and courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his private and family life, as well as from encroachment upon his honour and dignity.” 17 .     On 31   January 1991 the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania (the official name of the Lithuanian Parliament in 1990-92, before the present Constitution came into force) adopted a resolution on the writing of forenames and surnames in passports of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania ( Dėl vardų ir pavardžių rašymo Lietuvos Respublikos piliečio pase ). The resolution, which constituted a sub-statutory legal act, read: “1. In [a newly issued Lithuanian] passport ... forenames and surnames shall be written in Lithuanian characters according to the Lithuanian entries in existing passports or other personal documents on the basis of which the passport is issued. ... 4. Forenames and surnames entered in a [Lithuanian] passport ... shall be altered under a procedure established by means of legal instruments.” 18 .     The relevant part of the Law on a person’s identity card and passport ( Asmens tapatybės kortelės ir paso įstatymas ) currently reads: Article 3. Identity cards and passports, and the purpose thereof “1. An identity card and a passport shall constitute the identification documents of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania ... [to be used to confirm] his identity and citizenship. ...” Article 5. Entries in an identity card and passport “1. The following data concerning a person shall be entered in an identity card according to the data [held in the] the database of the Population Register ...   : 1) forename (forenames); 2) surname; 3) gender; 4) date of birth; 5) personal number. 2. The data referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, as well as the citizen’s place of birth (the name of the State) and his or her nationality..., shall be entered in the passport on the basis of the data [held in the] database of the Population Register. ... 5. [The forename/forenames and surname of a citizen] in an identity card and a passport shall be inscribed in Lithuanian characters ( lietuviškais rašmenimis ), in accordance with the procedure established by the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents and by other legal instruments regulating the writing of forenames and surnames in documents.” 19 .     On 18   January 2022 the Seimas adopted the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents ( Asmens vardo ir pavardės rašymo dokumentuose įstatymas ). The Law was signed by the President of the Republic on 25   January 2022, and came into force on 1   May 2022. The relevant part of the Law reads as follows: Article   1. The purpose of this Law “This Law regulates the main requirements for writing the forenames and surnames in the identity documents of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, in acts of civil status and in other official documents issued to a person in the Republic of Lithuania.” Article 2. Main definitions of this Law “1. The source of the document ( dokumento šaltinis ) – a document issued by the relevant institution of the Republic of Lithuania or of a foreign State, which confirms a person’s identity or which confirms the inscription of an act of civil status or a court decision on the basis of which a person’s forename and surname are written in the documents referred to in Article 1 of this Law. 2. The Lithuanian form of a forename and surname – a person’s forename and surname written in Lithuanian characters...” Article 3. Writing surnames and forenames “1. The surname and forename of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania are written in his or her identity documents ... and in acts of civil status in Lithuanian characters, except for the cases referred to in paragraph   3 of this Article and in Article 4 paragraph   2. 2. The surname given by one spouse to the other spouse or the surname given by parents or one parent to a child shall be written in the identity documents of a citizen of the Lithuanian Republic and in acts of civil status in Lithuanian characters, taking into account changes to the surname [to reflect] the gender [of the person in question], except for in those cases referred to in paragraph   3 of this Article and cases referred to in Article 4 § 2 of this Law. 3. Upon the request of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania who is not of Lithuanian nationality, in the documents proving the identity of that citizen of the Republic of Lithuania and in the acts of civil status his and his children’s surnames and forenames may be written in Latin-based characters (without diacritical marks). 4. The surname and forename of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania shall be written in other official documents issued by the Republic of Lithuania on the basis of data from the Population Register or on the basis of [that] citizen’s identity documents. ... 6. The order of writing a person’s surname and forename are set out in the Rules for writing forenames and surnames in identity and other documents. These rules are approved by the Government [see paragraph 20 below].” Article 4. Transcribing forenames and surnames “1. A surname and forename that are written in the source of the document in non-Lithuanian characters, in identity documents and in civil status acts [issued by] the Republic of Lithuania, [in a manner] complying with the following requirements: 1) a surname and forename that in the source of the document are written in Latin alphabet characters (without diacritical marks) or in Latin-based characters are transcribed literally on the basis of Latin alphabet characters (without diacritical marks); 2) a surname and forename that in the source document are written in non-Latin-based characters are transcribed into Latin alphabet characters (without diacritical marks); 3) a surname and forename that in the same source of the document are written in both Latin-based and non-Latin-based characters are transcribed literally into Latin-based characters (without diacritical marks). 2. The surname and forename of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania in his or her identity documents and in acts of civil status may be written in or transcribed into Latin-alphabet characters (without diacritical marks), if: ... 3) he or she chooses the surname of a spouse whose surname is written in the source of the document in non-Lithuanian characters; 4) the surname of one or both of his or her parents in the source of the document is written in non-Lithuanian characters. ...” Article   5. The entry into force, implementation and application of this Law “1. This Law, except for paragraph   2 of this Article, comes into force on 1   May 2022. 2. By 30   April 2022 the Government of the Republic of Lithuania will adopt legal instruments implementing this Law. 3. A person’s forename and surname entered in identity documents issued by the Republic of Lithuania prior to the coming into force of this Law, and ... in acts of civil status and other official documents issued by the Republic of Lithuania on the basis of a request lodged by the person concerned, are entered in accordance with the rules set out by this Law and by the rules on the writing of forenames and surnames in identity and other documents, as approved by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania [see paragraph   20 below]”. Article 6. Declaring the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania’s resolution null and void “The Supreme Council’s resolution of 31   January 1991 ... on the writing of forenames and surnames in passports of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania is declared null and void.” 20 .     On 27   April 2022 the Government passed Resolution no.   424 on the approval of the rules for writing forenames and surnames in identity and other documents ( Dėl asmens vardo ir pavardės rašymo asmens tapatybę patvirtinančiuose ir kituose dokumentuose taisyklių patvirtinimo ). The Resolution came into force on 1   May 2022. The Resolution provides, inter alia , that Lithuanian citizens’ forenames and surnames are to be written in Lithuanian characters, adhering to Lithuanian-language guidelines, as approved by the State Commission on the Lithuanian Language ( Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija ), except for in cases referred to in Article   3 §   3 and Article 4 §   2 of the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents (point 4 of the Rules). Surnames and forenames that in the source of the document are written in non-Lithuanian characters are transcribed literally into Latin-based alphabet characters (without diacritical signs), and under the rules set out in Article   4   §   1 of the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents. In the same manner could also be transcribed additional marks (such as dashes, apostrophes, brackets and full stops) that are mentioned in the legal instruments regulating the composition ( sudarymas ) of official documents and/or the rules regarding how those official documents are to be issued (point 14 of the Rules). Surnames and forenames that in the source of the document are written in Latin-alphabet-based characters are transcribed literally into Latin-alphabet-based characters (without diacritical marks), except for the same letters with diacritical marks as those in the Lithuanian alphabet (point 15 of the Rules). Surnames and forenames that in the source of the document are written in non-Latin-alphabet-based characters are transcribed into Latin-alphabet-based characters (without diacritical marks), except for the same letters with diacritical marks as those in the Lithuanian alphabet, and in accordance with the rules regarding transliteration using Latin based characters, as approved by the State Commission on the Lithuanian Language (point 16 of the Rules). COMPLAINT 21.     In her application to the Court and in her observations of 23   November 2017 the applicant complained that the Lithuanian authorities’ refusal to write her surname as “Wittib” in her Lithuanian identity documents was contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. THE LAW 22.     The applicant complained of the Lithuanian authorities’ refusal to write her surname as “Wittib” in her Lithuanian identity documents. She relied on Article   8 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life... 2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The parties’ submissions The Government 23.   In their observations submitted on 11   October 2017 and on 15   January 2018, the Government acknowledged that on 16   January 2014, when the present application had been lodged with the Court, there had been no examples of successful litigation before the domestic courts regarding the possibility to have entries in Lithuanian documents recorded in non-Lithuanian characters. The Government nevertheless referred to ample examples of domestic case-law – decisions of civil and administrative courts – which demonstrated that, from 2015 onwards, the case-law of the domestic courts had been evolving very rapidly, in a manner balancing competing private and public interests. Taking into account such developments within the relevant domestic case-law, which to a large extent had been prompted by the relevant constitutional case-law and the position of the Language Commission, the applicant – seeking that her married name in official documents be spelled using non-Lithuanian alphabet letters – could have found success by initiating fresh court proceedings, notwithstanding the existing legislative framework. 24.     In their submissions of 1   February 2022 the Government reiterated the above-noted argument. Specifically, as of July 2015 the domestic civil courts had already been granting plaintiffs’ claims by ordering municipal authorities to amend the spelling of family names in marriage certificates by using Latin-alphabet-based letters that do not exist in the Lithuanian alphabet – namely, the letters “q”, “x” and “w”. Similarly, as of July 2016 the domestic administrative courts had taken the same approach regarding the spelling of names in identity documents (that is to say the passports or identity cards of Lithuanian citizens). The domestic courts had consistently held that, in the case of a foreign element, such as the exercise of the freedom of movement under the European Union law, employment abroad or marriage, the right to a personal name outweighs the objective of protecting the State language (Lithuanian). An extensive and uniform jurisprudence had been created by the fact that the domestic courts had permitted hundreds of people the right to change the spelling of their names using Latin-alphabet-based letters. According to data from the national population register, in 2021 447 Lithuanian citizens had had their “names” registered and entered in the civil status acts’ records and recorded in the official identity documents using the Latin-based alphabet letters “q”, “x” and “w”. 25.   The Government also noted that the aforementioned judicial remedy had recently, with the adoption of new legislation, been transformed into an even more simplified administrative procedure. Namely, on 18   January 2022 the Seimas had passed the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents (see paragraph   19 above), which had permitted non ‑ Lithuanian names to be written in Latin alphabet-based characters (without diacritical marks). The aim of this recent legislative development had been to ensure the possibility of using the letters “q”, “x” and “w”, which do not exist in the Lithuanian alphabet, to spell the names of Lithuanian citizens in official identity documents and civil-status certificates in the event that those citizens had assumed their spouses’ non-Lithuanian surnames, as was so in the applicant’s case. Accordingly, it could be concluded that the matter giving rise to the applicant’s complaint could now be considered to have been finally “resolved” within the meaning of Article   37 of the Convention. 26.     Even so, the Government considered that this was no longer relevant in the applicant’s case, as on 13   March 2020 she had ceased to be a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania (see paragraph   15 above); therefore, in the Government’s view, it could be considered that the applicant had lost her victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. 27.     In conclusion, the Government stated that owing to the change in the applicant’s status, and taking into account the recent legislative developments, which could be considered to offer a remedy for the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the present case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The applicant 28 .     In her initial observations of 23   November 2017 the applicant argued that the domestic case-law referred to by the Government in their observations was ambiguous and could therefore not be seen as offering an effective remedy. In any case, decisions in those cases had been adopted in 2015 and on later dates, whereas the res judicata decision in the applicant’s case had been delivered by the Supreme Court in 2013. The applicant thus believed that the only remedy that could change her position, having regard to the res judicata court decision in her case, would be a change in the Lithuanian legislation concerning the writing of forenames and surnames in official documents that would provide a legally certain and precise procedure which left no scope for court litigation. However, at least by the time of the applicant’s observations of November 2017, no real legislative changes had occurred. The legal regulation, as it existed in Lithuania, gave rise to a systemic problem that affected every person who was in a similar situation to that of the applicant. 29.     Responding to the Government’s submission of 1   February 2022, in a letter of 19   May 2022 the applicant stated her strong disagreement with the proposal of the Government that the case be struck out of the Court’s list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. On the contrary, the applicant maintained that she continued to have a strong interest in pursuing her case until the Court delivered its final judgement. 30.     Firstly, the applicant disputed the view of the Government that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. As recounted in detail in her earlier observations, the applicant had exhausted all domestic remedies before lodging an application with the Court. Her particular case had been heard at final instance before the Supreme Court. The Government’s suggestion that the applicant should have restarted all sets of proceedings before the national courts, given that relevant national judicial and administrative practice had in the meantime changed, could not be accepted. The bringing of fresh sets of proceedings in respect of the same matter before administrative institutions and courts that had already delivered a final decision could not have made up for the legislative lacunae that had been present until 1   May 2022, when the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents had come into force. The applicant certainly welcomed the adoption of the new legislative procedure, yet its adoption in 2022 had not remedied the violation of her Convention rights, which stemmed from the refusal to register her proper family name fourteen years previously (see paragraph   6 above). 31 .     Secondly, with regard to her change of citizenship, the applicant wished to draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the infringement of her right to respect for family life had been ongoing since 2008. Moreover, after she had completed all the national judicial steps, her application to the Court had been lodged in 2014. After the completion of the written procedure before the Court in 2017, for the past five years no procedural actions had been taken in respect of the case. Thus, the situation of the applicant had remained unclarified for an unreasonably long time. In parallel, the Seimas had for a decade been unable to pass legislation such as the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents. It had been precisely this prolonged lack of judicial and legislative clarity that had forced the applicant to take practical steps to alleviate the practical problems caused by this violation. Indeed, it had been the inaction of the State institutions that had forced the applicant to relinquish her Lithuanian citizenship in order to be able to solve the everyday practical issues that she faced while living in Austria with a distorted family name. Had it not been necessary for her to resolve that problem, as a citizen of the European Union she would never have needed to acquire Austrian citizenship, and she had never had any intention of acquiring it (and in so doing relinquishing her Lithuanian citizenship). 32 .     Lastly, the applicant pointed out that she herself had not requested that any compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage be awarded in this case. This was done not because the applicant had not suffered damage as a result of the continuous long-term violation of her rights, but in the light of the fact by virtue of the above-noted violation the Lithuanian State had continuously treated its citizens with disrespect to the extent that they had found it more practical to renounce Lithuanian citizenship. And because of this, a declaration, albeit belated, that the applicant’s rights had been violated would constitute the correct remedy – one which, at least partially, might restore the mutual respect between the Lithuanian State and the applicant. 33.     For these reasons, the applicant intended to continue pursuing her application. The Court’s assessment 34 .     The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it may “at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... the matter has been resolved ...”. In order to be able to conclude that this provision applies to the instant case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no.   36732/97, §   42, 24   October 2002). In the present case, this entails first of all establishing whether the relevant Lithuanian legislation still provides that a person’s forename should be written in Lithuanian identity documents (that is to say a person’s passport and identity card) exclusively in Lithuanian characters; after that, the Court must consider whether the measures taken by the authorities constitute sufficient redress in respect of the applicant’s complaint (see Sisojeva and Others v.   Latvia (striking out) [GC], no.   60654/00, §   97, ECHR 2007-I). 35 .     With reference to the first question, the Court observes that the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents was adopted by the Seimas on 18   January 2022, signed by the President of the Republic on 25   January 2022 and entered into force on 1   May 2022 (see paragraph   19 above). The Court observes in particular that this new piece of legislation (Article   6) repealed the Supreme Council’s resolution of 31   January 1991, which had constituted the legal basis for the Lithuanian authorities’ decision to refuse the applicant’s request that her forename be written as “Wittib” in her Lithuanian marriage certificate and accordingly in her Lithuanian identity documents (see paragraphs 10 and 14 above). Contrary to that resolution, which provided that forenames and surnames in identity documents could be written only in Lithuanian characters (see paragraph 17 above), Article   4 of the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents stipulates that, in the event that a person wishes to take his or her spouse’s surname, that surname may be transcribed in Lithuanian identity documents in Latin-based characters (without diacritical marks) (see paragraph   19 above). The same rules were restated in the resolution adopted by the Government (see paragraph 20 above). It follows that a Lithuanian citizen – as the applicant was at the time of lodging the instant application with the Court – may seek to obtain Lithuanian identity documents with his or her surname name transcribed in the same manner as that of his or her spouse, provided that that name is based on Latin-based characters. 36.     Accordingly, the legal regulation about which the applicant complained in her application to the Court has ceased to exist. It therefore remains to be determined whether the aforementioned legislative changes are sufficient to provide redress for the possible effects of the situation about which she complained to the Court. 37.     The Court notes firstly that the applicant herself has acknowledged that one particular remedy could change her position, having regard to the res   judicata court decision in her case: namely, a change in the Lithuanian legislation concerning the writing of forenames and surnames in official documents that would provide legal certainty and a precise procedure that left no scope for court litigation (see paragraph 28 above). As noted above (see paragraph   35 above), the legislative change, long waited by the applicant, has already occurred on 18 January 2022, the law having entered into force on 1   May 2022. Moreover, given the wording of the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents, the Court sees no reason to doubt its capacity to effectively rectify the applicant’s situation inasmuch as it is linked to her complaint under Article   8 of the Convention. 38.     Secondly, the Court observes that under Article   5 §   3 of that Law a person’s forename and surname, as entered in his or her Lithuanian identity documents or in acts of civil status prior to the coming into force of that Law, may – at the request of the person in question – be entered in new documents in a manner that is in accordance with the rules set out by that new Law and by the follow-up sub-statutory legal instrument adopted by the Government (see paragraphs   19 and 20 above). It follows that the new law allows for the rectification of the situation of a Lithuanian citizen whose forename had been “Lithuanised” (as was the case of the applicant in 2008 – see paragraph 6 above). Accordingly, the Court considers that the Law on writing the forename and surname in identity documents, which has given the applicant an opportunity to seek that her forename be transcribed in the same manner as that of her husband’s, constitutes sufficient redress for her complaints under Article 8 of the Convention. 39.     Lastly, although the applicant complained of the toll that the spelling of her family name in Lithuanian characters (as opposed to Latin-based characters, in which her husband’s name is spelled) had had on her family life (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above), the Court cannot but note that not only the Lithuanian legal framework has been recently changed, but also that, at least as of 13   March 2020, the applicant is no longer a Lithuanian citizen – a fact which is clearly critical to this case and of which she omitted to inform the Court (see paragraph   15 above). Be that as it may, and without it being necessary for the Court to examine the reasons behind the applicant’s decision to renounce her Lithuanian citizenship, it suffices for the Court to note that under Article 3 of the Law on a person’s identity card and passport the applicant is no longer entitled to hold Lithuanian identity documents (see paragraph 18 above). 40.     Having regard to all the above considerations, the Court concludes that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see paragraph 34 above) have been met in the present case. The matter giving rise to this complaint can therefore now be considered to be “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). Lastly, there is no particular reason relating to respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, for the Court to continue its examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine . Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2022.     Dorothee von Arnim   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro   Deputy Registrar   President